标题： 人文领域学术书籍出版商的声望是否有共识？ DELPHI对调查结果的分析 显示英文标题

标题： Is there agreement on the prestige of scholarly book publishers in the Humanities? DELPHI over survey results

摘要： 尽管在支持评估过程中起着重要作用，但对评估系统和所使用的分类的批评是常见的。 考虑到科学界对使用排名或分类进行研究评估的接受程度是一个关键问题，本文的目的是测试学术书籍出版商声望排名——学术出版商指标（以下简称SPI）的结果。 SPI是一项基于调查的学术出版商声望公开排名（以及其他指标）。 最新版本的排名（2014年）是基于与大量受访者进行的专家咨询。 为了验证并改进评估机构提出的人文领域初始排名结果，采用德尔菲法，随机选择专家小组对初始排名进行了评估。 结果表明，该技术对初始排名具有均等化作用，并且其理论目标（专家共识）与实证结果之间有高度一致性（用基尼系数总结）。 由此产生的分类被认为更具结论性，并更容易被评估对象接受。 显示英文摘要

摘要： Despite having an important role supporting assessment processes, criticism towards evaluation systems and the categorizations used are frequent. Considering the acceptance by the scientific community as an essential issue for using rankings or categorizations in research evaluation, the aim of this paper is testing the results of rankings of scholarly book publishers' prestige, Scholarly Publishers Indicators (SPI hereafter). SPI is a public, survey-based ranking of scholarly publishers' prestige (among other indicators). The latest version of the ranking (2014) was based on an expert consultation with a large number of respondents. In order to validate and refine the results for Humanities' fields as proposed by the assessment agencies, a Delphi technique was applied with a panel of randomly selected experts over the initial rankings. The results show an equalizing effect of the technique over the initial rankings as well as a high degree of concordance between its theoretical aim (consensus among experts) and its empirical results (summarized with Gini Index). The resulting categorization is understood as more conclusive and susceptible of being accepted by those under evaluation.